Who's to Blame for Civ V?

[Defianc4]

Is there anyone specifically at Firaxis or 2k to blame for Civ V? Was it a collaborative problem?

The economy kinda sucks right now, so that may have explained 2k's decision to rush things a bit. The economy would also explaint he vuts to Firaxis staff.

Personally, I think that the only people who are to blame, are, well... (trying to be as unspecific as possible) 59 +255 people, plus another who loves to play golf quite a bit.

I think that the blame shouldn't be cast so much upon the companies themselves so much as the current economic climate that forced them into releasing a lower quality product, whoever you may believe is responsible for that.

However,t here were obviously some terrible decisions made during the process. To what degree were those faults due to Shafer's negligence?

 

[Fistalis]

It was a collaboration by many to go for mainstream customers. Hardcore fans simply were not their target audience. They will improve and add to it via patches drm etc but those will be targeted to mainstreamers as well.. Civ is dead for those who don't like this edition essentially.. but there will be plenty of **NEW FANS to take our place. The fact that civ V is so bad isn't what saddens me.. its the fact that Civ has finally gone the way of putting mainstream money over the loyal audience that has supported the franchise for a very long time.

Edit for clarification since some people like to skew a message**

 

[May Day 10]

it still doesnt take away from the absolute gift Civ IV has been and will always be. You can say the same for the older versions too, but I dont think they hold the same "staying power" Civ IV does with me.

And many Civ fans still are able to enjoy V immensely. However, it seems to have alienated a significant portion of the niche.

 

[Sonereal]

The people who bought the first Civilization game.

 

[Buccaneer]

It was a collaboration by many to go for mainstream customers. Hardcore fans simply were not their target audience. They will improve and add to it via patches drm etc but those will be targeted to mainstreamers as well.. Civ is dead for those who don't like this edition essentially.. but there will be plenty of civ noobs to take our place. The fact that civ V is so bad isn't what saddens me.. its the fact that Civ has finally gone the way of putting mainstream money over the loyal audience that has supported the franchise for a very long time.

But there are not many of us left to support a very expensive PC-based strategy game. Either we have something that can bring in the revenues as a mainstream title or it becomes either 1) a franchise that cannot support future patches and expansion packs (and no Civ6) or 2) a lower budgeted title that can be developed by a small team (and not 50+ persons).

 

[AlpsStranger]

It's interesting, and a little bit upsetting, that they more or less admit that they made some of the decisions they did in order to appeal to people that couldn't handle Civ4. I enjoy some of the decisions they made because I dislike being obligated to micromanage in TBS games, but it is clear that if I *do* agree with the changes they made in a given case that it is more of a coincidence than I would have thought.

I suppose the perfect Civ5 for me would look similar on the surface, but would have entirely different goals. *My* Civ5, for instance, would not have reduced the tech tree to its nearly linear state and removed the 'OR' paths from it, yet I may very well have gotten rid of tech trades. Similarly, I would have likely been in favor of their awesome citizen-locking system for easier city management, yet against their flattening of the tile yields.

It appears that Civ5's appeal to me (somewhat faint as it is) may be something of an accident. I didn't want a *simpler* Civ so much as I wanted one that required less turn to turn fiddling. I'll grant that there are those that contend such a thing would be impossible, but I don't really agree. In any case, Civ5 is not that game by design and is only barely that game by chance.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Civ is dead for those who don't like this edition essentially.. but there will be plenty of civ noobs to take our place. The fact that civ V is so bad isn't what saddens me.. its the fact that Civ has finally gone the way of putting mainstream money over the loyal audience that has supported the franchise for a very long time.

Sorry to brighten your dark, gloomy skies, but there are actually long time Civilization players (like me) who have played Civilization since the original and who also (gasp!) like Civilization V.

I can respect you don't like the game, but I and others aren't "noobs" and I find it offensive that you'd rather insult some of your fellow forum members than simply make it clear that it's your personal view of things.

 

[Sonereal]

Sorry to brighten your dark, gloomy skies, but there are actually long time Civilization players (like me) who have played Civilization since the original and who also (gasp!) like Civilization V.

I can respect you don't like the game, but I and others aren't "noobs" and I find it offensive that you'd rather insult some of your fellow forum members than simply make it clear that it's your personal view of things.

Many members have no manners...sadly.

I loved Civ4 and Civ5 is growing on me. My favorite game was Civ4BTS+RoM AND which blows Civ4BTS out of the water in terms in complexity. Yet I still like Civ5. There are too many snobs who look their noses down as console gamers like an aristocrat looks down at a man who works for his meal ticket.

 

[rbj2001]

I can't help feeling that some of the management at Firaxis just got complacent after the massive success of Civ4, and perhaps didn't dedicate enough resources to allow all the ideas to be thoroughly tested before making the final cut of the game. Then the game itself was obviously not finished in time for it to be properly tested, tuned, balanced and polished. Then again, maybe it was just that the lead designer did not have the inspiration and energy that previous designers had. Impossible to say unless someone from Firaxis who knows the real deal and all the parties involved decides to reveal all.

I don't know why people keep saying that CivIV was too complex for noobs. Most of the decision making is automated by default (citizens, tiles worked, workers) and recommendations are given as to buildings, technologies, and where to settle (blue circles). It's really easy to dive in and micromanage just as much or as little as you want.

 

[rbj2001]

BTW I don't buy the arm-waving "economy" argument. What exactly have colateralized debt obligations have to do with sales of Civ? Pretty much nothing, AFAIK.

 

[Fistalis]

Sorry to brighten your dark, gloomy skies, but there are actually long time Civilization players (like me) who have played Civilization since the original and who also (gasp!) like Civilization V.

I can respect you don't like the game, but I and others aren't "noobs" and I find it offensive that you'd rather insult some of your fellow forum members than simply make it clear that it's your personal view of things.

Apparently you don't read. I stated for THOSE OF US WHO DONT LIKE CIV V. Thats fine that you like civ V but its undeniable they made design decisions with the mainstream crowd in mind more than any of us. Never said you were a noob.. would be best if you get a little reading comprehension and stop looking for fights on the forums.

 

[dexters]

If you hate it You are to blame. For buying it day 1 sight unseen.

I have every Civ game, so It's not like I'm going to rant about it even if I didn't like it. I thought CivRev was a distraction, and still bought it

 

[MeowTau]

As a long time Civ player since II, I'm optomistic about what V can become, and like a lot of the changes. In Civ IV, much the the micromanagement was not fun, but tedious. I loved thinking out where to place my cities. I did not enjoy checking all my cities each turn to make sure one did not slip into unhappiness.

I like the flattening of resources. Now no matter where you start, you can have a relatively decent go at things, which was not the case in IV. But diplomacy sucks. There are no longer any friends, and every AI will eventually attack you regardless of your actions. The game is also too easy... and I find myself losing interest in my 6 player diety games at turn 100 as it is already clear I will win. It took me years to get to regularly beating emperor in Civ IV, and I barely managed to win a couple games on immortal. I'm hardly the best of Civ players but not even a month after release and I feel like I'm done already.

I think the base is solid, but there is a lot of stuff to fix. The war AI is pathetic. There are few personality differences between civilization leaders, and all the leaders are psychotic. Producing units takes too long, and becomes very slow late game. Most late game buildings are not worth building. I miss the cottage economy, which encouraged planning and investment. Cities grow too slowly, and endless city spawn is rewarded. And on and on. But these things feel fixable. The 1upt and hex grid is the best thing I think has ever happened to the Civ franchise... but yeah, this one is just not grabbing me the same as IV in its present state.

 

[ElephantRider]

You know, I'm gonna blame us consumers. But I'm one that actually likes Civ V. I like a lot of the changes they've made. Some I don't. But it is obvious that it's not a finished product. Even assuming that there will be expansions, the first release of it just seems unfinished.

I blame us consumers for the unfinished product. If you look back at the price of video games for the last 30 years, they're one of the few things that have not increased in price due to inflation. A game today costs roughly the same as it did on the Atari 2600. Sometimes games are cheaper now. I remember some games on the NES costing $80. Nowadays it's pretty much set at $60. Based on inflation alone games should really cost about $150, at least. But there's not many gamers I know who would shell out that kind of money for one game up front. This leads companies to release games early and not invest the time and development that needs to be done. Budgets run out long before a game is ever completed. I think this is also the reason for the DLC phenomenon. Hardly anyone would pay $150 for a game. But a lot of people will support the DLC strategy and end up paying more in the long run. And that is why I blame us.

I know I invested quite a bit in Civ IV, buying it and the 2 expansions at full price when they came out. I don't remember exactly how much it was total, but It was at least $120. Would anyone have paid that for Civ IV if it was originally released with everything BTS has in it?

 

[Grimberht]

It was a collaboration by many to go for mainstream customers. Hardcore fans simply were not their target audience. They will improve and add to it via patches drm etc but those will be targeted to mainstreamers as well.. Civ is dead for those who don't like this edition essentially.. but there will be plenty of civ noobs to take our place. The fact that civ V is so bad isn't what saddens me.. its the fact that Civ has finally gone the way of putting mainstream money over the loyal audience that has supported the franchise for a very long time.

I think that the mistake here... they wont get a "new" generation of civers. Turn base strategy aint a Mainstreamer to begin with. It more like shooting, WW2, Gnome, Zergs and Chocobos! Not a game that take hours to go through each era.

I think they know this... but they went for trying to get a new market from the get go and sssssslllllllloooooooooooowly improve the game for the hardcore fan by ripping off the best thing they'll see in the moding community.. a lot easier to actually design it by themself.

 

[Vordeo]

There wasn't really much more that could be done with what they'd built in CivIV, other than improving graphics and such. They could've added things like city states, but that would've been more suited to an expansion.

Thus, in a decision I fully support, they decided to try and make a new game. They've made alot of changes, some great IMO (no more stacks of death, civ UAs, etc), some poorly implemented (AI, city state balance). As with any changes, some people will like them (I fall into that camp) and some people won't. Compounding the issue is the fact that the game looks to have been a bit rushed, and has shipped with a number of bugs, balance issues and with crap AI, though I'm fully confident these will be fixed via patches.

The latest argument is that they're somehow screwing over hardcore fans by simplifying certain things and going for a wider mainstream crowd. Of course, the argument doesn't make much sense seeing as how several hardcore fans who post on here enjoy the game regardless, and bad AI (the main complaint from most quarters) doesn't have jack to do with game complexity. Complexity =/= good gameplay.

If you don't like the changes that's your right, but at least recognize that some people actually like the changes made, and that the developers, despite their best intentions, aren't perfect and can't please everyone.

Lastly, I don't see how a thread looking for people to blame is going to be helpful to anyone, or constructive in any way.

 

[Vordeo]

BTW I don't buy the arm-waving "economy" argument. What exactly have colateralized debt obligations have to do with sales of Civ? Pretty much nothing, AFAIK.

...what?

People, in general, have less disposable income to spend thanks to the economy. Some people have less cash because they've been laid off, and some have less cash due to weaker business performance. Others are less inclined to spend, as they're worried about the economy getting worse and want to save their money instead of spending on things like video games.

As a result of all these, Firaxis theoretically has a smaller market of gamers to sell it's products to. I don't think it's having that big an effect on Firaxis sales, but to deny it's had any effect is a bit ignorant IMO.

 

[ElephantRider]

...what?

People, in general, have less disposable income to spend thanks to the economy. Some people have less cash because they've been laid off, and some have less cash due to weaker business performance. Others are less inclined to spend, as they're worried about the economy getting worse and want to save their money instead of spending on things like video games.

As a result of all these, Firaxis theoretically has a smaller market of gamers to sell it's products to. I don't think it's having that big an effect on Firaxis sales, but to deny it's had any effect is a bit ignorant IMO.

Actually you can make the argument that the slow down in spending has helped the gaming industry. People are more likely to buy a game because of the time they can invest per dollar. If you buy a $60 game and play it for 100 hours, you still got way more out of your $60, time wise, than you did going to $60 worth of movies. Especially for a large family. If a family has 3 kids and they can spend $60 on one game to occupy those kids time, it's cheaper than going to the movies. Of course, the large family argument probably applies more to games like are on the Wii. But either way, $60 on a game is a way better entertainment value, time wise, than most other things.

 

[eviltypeguy]

Apparently you don't read. I stated for THOSE OF US WHO DONT LIKE CIV V. Thats fine that you like civ V but its undeniable they made design decisions with the mainstream crowd in mind more than any of us. Never said you were a noob.. would be best if you get a little reading comprehension and stop looking for fights on the forums.

No, I read what you wrote. Note you were the one who said:

".. but there will be plenty of civ noobs to take our place."

Since I'm not part of the group that doesn't like the game, you're implying that I'm a noob to take your place. My reading comprehension is just fine, thank you very much (there you go again insulting another forum member).

 

[Vordeo]

Actually you can make the argument that the slow down in spending has helped the gaming industry. People are more likely to buy a game because of the time they can invest per dollar. If you buy a $60 game and play it for 100 hours, you still got way more out of your $60, time wise, than you did going to $60 worth of movies. Especially for a large family. If a family has 3 kids and they can spend $60 on one game to occupy those kids time, it's cheaper than going to the movies. Of course, the large family argument probably applies more to games like are on the Wii. But either way, $60 on a game is a way better entertainment value, time wise, than most other things.

That's a good point, but for everyone who that applies to, there are probably multitudes who either don't have the disposable income to use on video games or have cut back on recreational stuff due to concerns about money.